#HRx

The basic tenets of Heroic Reaction:

— Moldbug is over-rated.
— Capitalism needs to be brought under control.
— The errors of fascism are dwarfed by those of libertarianism.
— White racial community is the core.
— ‘Atomization’ is a serious problem.
— Answers are already easily available, so over-thinking is unhelpful, and even seriously pathological.

Unlike #NRx, #HRx is primarily a political movement. Its theoretical appetite is modest, since it has faith that everything it truly needs can be retrieved — more-or-less straightforwardly — from the folkish past.

Among the many myriads confusedly aligned with ‘Neoreaction’, a number have already expressed an explicit interest in abandoning this odd cult for a bolder, brasher, more politically dynamic successor, stripped of techno-commercial Vulcanism, race-treachery, and intellectual circumlocution. Far more would join the exodus (from #NRx) if energetically led. Others would pour in from elsewhere. All #HRx still requires is a commander. Then it could be huge.

From the moment #HRx is born, the scale of (apparent) #NRx would shrink dramatically. That is an outcome, I suspect, that could be endured among the remnant with serene stoicism.

ADDED: Brett Stevens has some thoughtful commentary. (See also below.)

April 11, 2015admin 109 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Ideology

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

109 Responses to this entry

  • Brett Stevens Says:

    This #hrx thing sounds interesting, but I have a few quibbles, if you’ll indulge me…

    Capitalism needs to be brought under control.

    I’m not sure where I fit in on this spectrum, but my position could be stated thus: quality leadership is needed at every level. This raises not so much a question of control of capitalism, but guidance of everything.

    Another way to look at this: do invisible hand systems work at all? After all, capitalism and democracy have something in common, which is that whatever most people like — meaning they think is what they need, not know — predominates.

    I would be very skeptical of any sort of centralized economy as in socialism however, since we know that tends to destroy any form of productivity.

    I also doubt the term “control.” I think things can be guided, but not controlled. Capitalism does not have an inherent morality except public image, and that is a fatal flaw, in that it is weak where needed and strong where it tends toward liberalism. I’m thinking of Wal-mart endorsing gay marriage this week, but any number of other issues.

    The errors of fascism are dwarfed by those of libertarianism.

    Hard to tell on this one. Do they mean literal fascism (Mussolini/Franco)? That was closer to libertarianism than most people think.

    Or do they mean National Socialism? At that point however you are looking at a socialist society.

    What I like about extreme capitalism is that it severs the need for any individual citizen to pay anything for any other. Zero welfare, entitlements, etc. This encourages self-reliance and removes parasites.

    What bothers me about capitalism is McDonald’s, Wal-mart, etc. People make bad choices, and in big organizations, they tend to become calcified at the same time they have unprecedented economic power.

    ‘Atomization’ is a serious problem.

    Does anyone disagree with this? Loss of culture and comradeship means zombie people wandering around disconnected.

    For introverts, this is less of a problem.

    The best description of this comes from Houellbecq and it shows exactly why culture and community are essential. Otherwise, people drift, and commit temporary deeds to address long-term emptiness.

    Answers are already easily available, so over-thinking is unhelpful, and even seriously pathological.

    Hinges on “easily.” Answers are clear, once the thinking is done. But that’s some work, so “easily” might be a glitch here. Maybe not.

    As far as over-thinking, perhaps the term used should be intellectualizing, which implies thinking for the sake of thinking as an activity, not thinking toward results.

    White racial community is the core.

    This is where I screamed out loud. These words bring back nightmares.

    “White racial community” is a myth.

    A Western European series of cultures, united on themselves? An optimal reality.

    The reason many of us took a pan-nationalist attitude in the 1990s was to escape the ethno-bolshevism of the term “white,” which denies not only nationality (Greek, English, German, French, Italian) but social class.

    I have more on these topics and others in a forthcoming interview with The Right Stuff, but for now, let me say that many “convenient” ideas are wrong, and that they replace other wrong ideas does not give them automatic legitimacy…

    [Reply]

    northanger Reply:

    The absence of democracy is the monopoly of capitalism.

    [Reply]

    Brett Stevens Reply:

    The absence of democracy sounds like a good idea.

    A monopoly by capitalism however leaves no room for culture, and might cover the world in McDonald’s and Wal-marts.

    I share strong anti-socialist sentiments but perhaps swinging the pendulum too far in the opposite direction will also result in disaster.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    Why does capitalism leave no room for culture?

    Some would argue (me and Admin) that capitalism is itself a culture of a sort.

    Alrenous Reply:

    I say capitalism merely empowers the existing culture. The train doesn’t decide where to take the passengers.

    Kgaard Reply:

    Here is a minor example of where capitalism erodes culture: Public spaces are increasingly “pimped out” to business (to borrow a phrase from Matthew Crawford’s new book): When you go to the airport CNN is blaring. You can’t escape it. When you go to a mall or restaurant music is blasted at you relentlessly. Even new housing developments have Muzak oozing up out of the gardens. The aural commons are hijacked by capital.

    Taxis — they hammer you with advertisements and TV pitches in the back seat. Even GAS STATIONS are now instruments of torture. While you’re filling up the tank they clobber you with awfulness of all kinds over the loudspeakers.

    Where is the check on this process?

    I have found travel decreasingly enjoyable of late because my senses are always being attacked at times when I am vulnerable. For instance walking down the jetway you are hit with HSBC ads. Is that necessary? Go into the hotel room and the TV is ALREADY ON blasting bullshit on you. It’s up to you the client to find out how to turn it off as your very first action. All insulting. All torture. All capitalism.

    Aeroguy Reply:

    Kgaard,

    I’m with you on that, non-consensual bombardment of the senses is one of if not the most evil aspect of modernity (when ads, that most horrid of populist mind control devices is included). I look forward to when technology potentially catches up and we can get ad-block for the senses thanks to advances in noise canceling and glasses that dynamically perceive what you see and allow you to “tweak” what you see though it’s display. Like the internet it can be used to enhance perception of reality or to dive head first into insane fantasy and avoid reality entirely. I’d say about 10-20 years away, possible today if you don’t mind wearing a helmet everywhere.

    Seriously though, ads are the most unappreciated source of evil.

    nydwracu Reply:

    Eat your superstimulus bars.

    Kgaard Reply:

    Which raises the question of how we should feel about needing to retreat to virtual reality to escape the tentacles of corporations that have appropriated our space. Is it not a defeat? Does VR not lend itself to the risk of a kind of autism, whereby we can choose the perfect world for ourselves at the touch of a button?

    I’ve been going back and forth on VR as an answer. I think it’s going to be a kind of siren-type technology which seems magical (because it is) but reduces us to constantly amused children with no character, no backbone and no differentiation. It will mark both total defeat of mankind AS mankind, and liberation from the hell that man has made for himself due to a combination of a) the mouse utopia dynamic of overcrowding and b) the unchecked power of corporations and the nation state to steamroll over all other cultural forms.

    [Reply]

    Brett Stevens Reply:

    Which raises the question of how we should feel about needing to retreat to virtual reality to escape the tentacles of corporations that have appropriated our space.

    This strikes me as the vital question of mass popularity movements like capitalism and democracy: they create societies which will make anyone with a brain want to retreat.

    Mass popularity involves compromise among all involved, which trims off the radical edges, which democracies brag about as a form of “stability.”

    But when we see the face of the masses, it is loud simplistic music, constant advertising, and screaming personal drama… without a guiding force like culture, capitalism serves this.

    Kgaard Reply:

    “Mass popularity movements like capitalism and democracy: they create societies which will make anyone with a brain want to retreat.”

    Yes. This is precisely the question. I’ve spent 8 years traveling the globe looking for some PLACE that is immune from this. And you know what? I haven’t found one. Same shit everywhere. At least, in the big cities.

    I suspect the answer would be some combination of:

    * Tony small town (college town, high-end tourist town);
    * Strong rituals that you personally embrace (Latin mass, Buddhist temples at the neighborhood level, meditation, participation in choir/orchestra, martial arts/tennis/golf);
    * Quality physical surroundings (mountains, sea, excellent architecture);
    * Legal limits on bullshit advertising and noise (ordinances to limit billboards, limit loud music);
    * Strong patriarchal legal system;
    * Reasonable degree of local authority in politics.

    Anybody got suggestions? Switzerland may qualify. Small-town Japan. Madison Wisconsin (nice lakes); Naples, FL; Nosara, Costa Rica; Bratislava, Slovakia.

    Just spitballing these names really … They are all flawed.

    Michael Reply:

    uh is the rd pill crowd considering the blue pill now [totally gratuitous profanity] left wing poseurs all come out in the end

    Kgaard Reply:

    Michael, is that aimed at me? On what basis would you say I’m a left wing poseur?

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    @ B.S.

    “What bothers me about capitalism is McDonald’s, Wal-mart, etc. People make bad choices, and in big organizations, they tend to become calcified at the same time they have unprecedented economic power.”

    Seriously question – how do you measure if a John Q. Public’s choice is good or bad?

    Is it a bad choice to buy a snow shovel at Walmart for $12.50 when I could get the same shovel at Mom N Pop’s for $21.95?

    “The reason many of us took a pan-nationalist attitude in the 1990s was to escape the ethno-bolshevism of the term “white,” which denies not only nationality (Greek, English, German, French, Italian) but social class.”

    Good point. Perhaps articulating these differences could be a preliminary course of study for #HRx.

    My general impression, B.S., is that you’re an intelligent person that I’d like to have a drink with, but you’ve been living and thinking in an echo chamber for so long that you think your terms are not in need in definition or defense. (“Bad choices”, “zombie people”, etc.) But if you think about it, you’re accidentally slipping into a kind of conservalib cryptolect that’s not producing the solid foundation that you think it does.

    [Reply]

    Brett Stevens Reply:

    Is it a bad choice to buy a snow shovel at Walmart for $12.50 when I could get the same shovel at Mom N Pop’s for $21.95?

    Depends on what type of shovel it is.

    People looking for simple systemic definitions are already in the wrong place.

    you’ve been living and thinking in an echo chamber for so long that you think your terms are not in need in definition or defense

    This is a generic attack and I grant it response accordingly.

    [Reply]

    Rainer Chlodwig von Kook Reply:

    Philo-Semitism needs to be brought under control.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 11th, 2015 at 2:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • Orthodox Laissez-fairist Says:

    It would be best for everyone if this NRx VS HRx Schism became official, as to avoid any further confusion between Formalism and Evolanism.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 11th, 2015 at 3:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • Erebus Says:

    Where was this HRx idea initiated? Who gave it its name & codified those tenets?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    (Answering that question might be unhelpful at this stage.)

    [Reply]

    Brett Stevens Reply:

    Like all things Neoreaction, it occurred of its own impetus.

    [Reply]

    Konkvistador Reply:

    False.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 11th, 2015 at 3:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • genghiskhan Says:

    HRx is just Anglo-American neofascism. No need to reinvent terminology…

    [Reply]

    nydwracu Reply:

    I’m not seeing anything up there about Hegel or a duce.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 11th, 2015 at 3:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • zugzug Says:

    Moldbug’s main concern is creating a jewish aristocracy to rule us goyim

    [Reply]

    Meow Blitz Reply:

    Calvinism is the root of all liberalism goyim. Moldbug, more like Curtis Yarvinsteinbergblatz. 😉

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 11th, 2015 at 3:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hattori Says:

    ” Moldbug is over-rated.”

    I think very few would say this, excluding outright neo-nazis. Mostly they might dislike the patchwork and are annoyed Moldbug goes easy on the Jews. (he does, but it’s for the best)

    “White racial community is the core.”
    Remember Evola dismisses biological race in favor of “spiritual” Aryanism, though most evolians seem to often forget this.

    “‘Atomization’ is a serious problem.”
    This is the most pertinent point, for reasons expressed by Brett, that I Think tech-comm has no convincing answer for.

    [Reply]

    Brett Stevens Reply:

    Remember Evola dismisses biological race in favor of “spiritual” Aryanism, though most evolians seem to often forget this.

    While this is true, he based it on the Hindu system, where both race and spirit are reflections of one another. That is, there is a hierarchy, and one is born into it but can move upward or downward based on individual quality.

    This is the most pertinent point, for reasons expressed by Brett, that I Think tech-comm has no convincing answer for.

    I agree. It calls to mind this work of art: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtWTUt2RZh0

    The modern time is profound in its loneliness and alienation. What is the cause of this? We have no direction in common on which to collaborate.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 11th, 2015 at 4:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • Neoreactionary fragmentation | Amerika Says:

    […] Unlike #NRx, #HRx is primarily a political movement. Its theoretical appetite is modest, since it has faith that everything it truly needs can be retrieved — more-or-less straightforwardly — from the folkish past. – Outside In, “HRX,” April 11, 2015 […]

    Posted on April 11th, 2015 at 4:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • Anonymous Says:

    I support this sloughing but I’m entrist scum so that’s a point in HRx’s favour I suppose

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 11th, 2015 at 4:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • Foseti Says:

    So how exactly is that not just fascism?

    While we’re at it, I’d love to know how “white racial community” can meaningfully be distinguished from “progressivism.”

    Lastly, any movement that is expressly political isn’t reactionary.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I don’t think you’re getting what this is about (at all).

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 11th, 2015 at 4:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • Bryce Laliberte Says:

    I was under the impression HRx is like a colony so that those bitching that NRx isn’t “doing enough” can go away and make calls for “doing something” persistently somewhere else.

    [Reply]

    Brett Stevens Reply:

    I was under the impression HRx is like a colony so that those bitching that NRx isn’t “doing enough” can go away and make calls for “doing something” persistently somewhere else.

    I remember this debate from white nationalism.

    The “do somethings” break down into two camps: (1) the radicals, of whom half are paid by the federal government to be informants and to provoke others into doing illegal things so Officer McSmiley gets his quota for the month and (2) the individualists, who make pleasant noises about prosperity and then go on to focus on their careers while using “ideology” to blow off steam.

    The group that’s forgotten? Those like myself who argue cultural recapture, and recapture of vital institutions.

    [Reply]

    Meow Blitz Reply:

    It’s a tricky thing to measure, largely because those actually doing something are actually doing things they can’t publicly talk about: being politicians, working in popular media, academia, the government, etc. I would argue that making blogs, troll raiding, and engaging in Twitter arguments, etc IS doing something. What we’re all doing can be a small part of the larger ‘right wing conspiracy’. The current culture war against SJWs proves this in action. I agree of course that living in a cabin and stockpiling ammo for RAHOWA is probably a great way to end up dead, unemployed, or just laughed at.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 11th, 2015 at 4:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    I’ll always be NRx and helping out with Curt’s stuff as well. Willing to declare moldbug my west-coast boss and repair exit dynamics and study for whatever and get funds for whatever if need be.

    There’s no way i’m following the leaders of #hrx, but I guess that was sort of implicit

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 11th, 2015 at 5:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • an inanimate aluminum tube Says:

    It’s great to finally see such a clear and concise description of the tenets of an ideology, too bad it’s one that nobody has heard of until recently.

    Someone should do a similar list of tenets for Neoreaction and regular (paleo?) reaction, touching on the same issues and adding a few additional ones if necessary.

    Might help accelerate the fission.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    “too bad it’s one that nobody has heard of until recently.”

    I’ve been hearing the tenets of said ideology being recited for more than a year now.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    I frequently have cause to say my middle name is ‘nobody.’

    [Reply]

    Zimriel Reply:

    Our host is making a little joke. Sometimes he does that.

    The tenets listed here aren’t real tenets. They’re axioms for use in Internet arguments. For the real tenets, the reader must go back to the European Romantics, especially the Voelkisch movement.

    [Reply]

    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    “Our host is making a little joke.”

    I know. But I’d still like to see those other lists I mentioned.

    [Reply]

    Brett Stevens Reply:

    Our host is making a little joke.

    And in the process, making a necessary figurative argument.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 11th, 2015 at 5:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • vimothy Says:

    NRx: My Glad Journey from Carlyle to Mises.

    [Reply]

    Clov Reply:

    A good road, but you went in the wrong direction.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 11th, 2015 at 5:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • Pavel Alekseyev Says:

    Count me in. I’m tired of reading theory, tired of the only “right” in politics being Republicans Inc. and I’m really fucking tired of watching the overton window slink ever leftward. You have my email, get a hold of me. I have a LOT of ideas.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 11th, 2015 at 5:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • scientism Says:

    “On this, the year 48 of our Glorious and Heroic Revolution, we commerate our Great Founder, who gave us our Principles and set us on our righteous course of Heroic Conquest. This statue, the tallest the world has ever seen, will hold the light of Heroism aloft in the name of our Reich and inspire fear in our enemies for millennia hence. At his feet, carved in stone for all eternity, are the Principles he gave to us: that Moldbug is over-rated, that Capitalism needs to be brought under control, that the errors of fascism are dwarfed by those of libertarianism, that White racial community is the core, that ‘Atomization’ is a serious problem, and that answers are already easily available, so over-thinking is unhelpful, and even seriously pathological. And so it is that I dedicate this statue of our Great Founder, Nicholas Land I, to all Heroes past and present, may he live on in Valhalla and may we all heed his Principles and learn from his Heroic example.” — dedication by the Grand Wizard of the Heroic Reich, the Year of Our Land 48

    [Reply]

    Izak Reply:

    hahahaha

    “And now, let us consecrate this commemoration by listening to Winglord – Heroica, to celebrate the great heroism of our heroic achievements.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 11th, 2015 at 6:07 pm Reply | Quote
  • grey enlightenment Says:

    What is HRx?

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    Can you read the posts before commenting?

    It doesn’t require that much effort.

    [Reply]

    grey enlightenment Reply:

    doh! right on the top of his post. I have never heard of HRX. A Google search shows next to nothing

    For some reason articulating NRXs is difficult, so much so that a large number of NRX posts are about trying explain what it believes in. Some are traditionalists, others less so. You have all these schisms

    [Reply]

    Brett Stevens Reply:

    For some reason articulating NRXs is difficult, so much so that a large number of NRX posts are about trying explain what it believes in.

    The same thing was true of conservatism until conservatives realized that it doesn’t matter too much, and started getting people mobilized on issues.

    Rasputin Reply:

    You’re seriously holding up conservatives as something to emulate here?

    Posted on April 11th, 2015 at 6:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • CuiPertinebit Says:

    @I agree. It seems to me that the Catholic concept of “subsidiarity” – the idea that things should be left on the most local scale possible – is an important one to culture and humane living. I am also irritated by the Capitalist Kingdom of Noise that greets me everywhere I go. Large companies do this because they know they are almost certain to have your business for a variety of reasons.

    I certainly agree with the (Neo)Reactionary criticisms of Democracy – again, criticisms long since made by the Church – and I do agree that benevolent monarchy and control by persons vested in the country’s success are better than the squabbling of interest groups looking to carve up a corpse. This would mean curtailing many things now considered “rights.” But I also believe that Aristotle and Aquinas (and the Church’s official teaching) are right in agreeing that the raison d’etre of the State, is to help man attain his natural (and supernatural, the Church would add) end. The State does not exist primarily to command citizens, but to facilitate citizens – from whom the State arises – in the attaining of their natural end, with an healthy amount of respect for their ability to do this themselves, when security and rule of law are present. Therefore, I don’t anticipate a Neoreactionary State being any more controlling than it has to be – though, to be sure, denying humanistic “rights” and curtailing the twisted ideologies’ free action is a must.

    Thus, the point: I wouldn’t want to embrace an attitude that said “Capitalism must be reined in,” if by this we meant “massive state control and interference in business.” But I think some simple controls, designed to keep economic activity and benefits as local as possible, would be helpful. For example, one could say that private businesses will be largely unregulated, but it would be illegal for businesses to grow to the size where they dominated a region or an entire nation, or threatened the economy if they were to fail (ditto for banks). Likewise, there would be no minimum wage laws, but it would be illegal for executives to take home obscenely disproportionate salaries; some ratios and formulae would have to be worked out, to find an equitable way of rewarding more valuable employees while, at the same time, not utterly cheating the entry-level workers. The goal is to avoid the extreme of Corporatism on the one hand (where executives strive to give their employees as little as possible while taking as much as possible for themselves), and of Communism on the other (which would simply steal wealthier people’s money and discourage persons from achieving anything). A company still has every incentive to be profitable, but executives know they aren’t going to take home bigger salaries unless their other employees see some kind of raise, albeit proportionately more modest, as well. Also, small businesses and start-ups needn’t worry that the State is mandating they find nine bucks an hour to pay all their employees. If some local teenagers or a family want to start a business, all that is required is that the employees get some kind of compensation in proportion to the owners. The goal is to keep the companies local, and to keep their profits and benefits flowing generously into the local culture.

    It seems to me that our current form of Capitalism – where massive corporations easily do as they please and wield enough power even to receive obeisance from the State, also obliterating every trace of local culture and crushing most small, local enterpreneurs – is dangerous. Communism is not an alternative, obviously, but all too often people act as though the only options were cut-throat Corporatism or murderous Communism. An approach that seeks to keep economic activity and benefits local, while still encouraging profitability and restraining itself from mandating too many of the particulars for businesses, is certainly possible.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 11th, 2015 at 7:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • Izak Says:

    So far the penultimate point is my favorite.

    If NRx is unconcerned with atomization and alienation, that’s a major area where I can see fruitful disagreement.

    However, I disagree with admin’s (implicit) suggestion that this is entirely a brahmin vs. ksatriya (or vaisya or whatever) issue. There are “HRx” people who have no interest in political activism, and I think the admin is guilty of characterizing an intellectual polarity based on the voice of its doofiest members. I think this is something like what Scott Alexander calls the “Weak man” fallacy.

    I consider myself nonconformist and essentially apolitical, so I will go ahead and suggest two possibilities here, not for this so-called HRx (because if the admin is inventing and defining it, he can’t possibly be wrong), but just for possibilities where I can see fruitful disagreement.

    NRx says: The right/left dichotomy is characterized by the degree to which order and hierarchy is maintained. (Mencius Moldbug)
    “HRx” says: The right/left dichotomy is characterized by the attitude of its adherents toward the notion of equality. (Jonathan Bowden)

    NRx says: Human nature must be dealt with “as is” using a structure that makes no attempt at improving the lowest common denominator. (Hence the concern with how human nature works, questions of individual vs group selection)
    “HRx” says: Human nature should be understood, but ultimately a good political structure must demand people suspend or redirect their lowest qualities toward something higher (hence the lack of concern with group selection — if most ethno-nats were told that group selection is wrong, they probably wouldn’t care. They’d be fine with the notion of race as sufficient as an arbitrary construction for identity, just like religion or whatever else)

    In sum: whereas the NRx people seem mostly concerned with how structure deals with its people, I think the “HRx” people are more concerned with how the people inform the structure. I personally fall into the latter category, but for the life of me, I can’t find a coherent attitude toward statecraft on the ethno-nat “HRx” side of things. The big debate going on there is: big state or small state?

    If I were to say that there’s one perspective I can appreciate, it would be Richard Spencer’s suggestion that the EU is an intrinsically good structure, and one that can be seized and rerouted toward a more aggressive, muscular, European imperium — one that could perhaps one day explore the moons of Jupiter. This strikes me as about equally quixotic and Faustian as Moldbug’s neocameralist solution. But I find it about equal in some sense, because both prescriptions involve taking the momentum of history and rerouting it toward something different. It also seems somewhat non-Utopian. Moldbug actually writes in his Dawkins essay that TODAY’s corporations are ideal as a model of governance (you hear that, Hurlock? TODAY’s corporations. Your point about how the government interferes with stuff is basically irrelevant). He even makes some joke like “You never see State-Owned Burger Emporium signs on the side of the highways” — it’s a very poignant quip, because he’s sort of willing to say “yes McDonalds can run a country,” and that’s bold and impressive to me, if not equally disturbing. Spencer’s solution is also non-Utopian in the sense that he’s basically OK with all ethnicities being devoid of character and idiosyncrasy. He’s perfectly fine with all Europeans blending together and being a bunch of mutts. Again, I find this disturbing, but I appreciate his openness.

    The small-state solution of ethno-nats like Greg Johnson seems to be an attempt to reverse history, which I find less interesting on a purely aesthetic level, although I like that he is concerned with preserving individual ethnicities and not turning everything into a gigantic melting pot.

    So in conclusion: yes, if the techno-comm wing of NRx wants to throw the ethno-nats a bone and help them figure out some stuff, then by all means, go ahead and do it. But let’s take the differences as seriously as we can. I think a good way to do it would be firstly by saying that the question of intellectualism vs activism should be thrown out the window. If anyone is promoting meaningless activism, they’re not necessarily anything except impractical.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 11th, 2015 at 7:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • ReactionaryFerret Says:

    Just waiting for their leader….
    Well, okay then…

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 11th, 2015 at 8:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • Simon Fortescue Says:

    I sense that admin regards fission time as long overdue, this is clearly a trojan horse tech-comm purge in disguise. They’ll wheel that fancy HRx mule into the gates of their city and then a million nanobots will come pouring out and eat their eyes. I’m in favour.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 11th, 2015 at 9:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    No.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 11th, 2015 at 9:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    @Kggard

    “Here is a minor example of where capitalism erodes culture: Public spaces are increasingly “pimped out” to business.”

    Perhaps we should finally divorce the markets from capitalism altogether.
    It’s not as if they’re still living together, they’re barely on speaking terms.

    When did you realize you had begun to hate the markets part of capitalism by the way?

    Now given modern central banking there’s no reason not to leave them behind.

    Scrape those markets off, you don’t need them anymore.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 11th, 2015 at 9:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rasputin Says:

    If a Neoreactionary is a Libetarian mugged by reality, a ‘Heroic Reactionary’ is a Neoreactionary mugged by Michael Anissimov.

    [Reply]

    Rasputin Reply:

    Presumably left with brain damage.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 11th, 2015 at 11:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • Xavi' Says:

    I offer the position that one cannot be an authentic NeoReactionary, or even of sound Philosophical mind without seeking the total obliteration of Capitalism in its entirety.

    When a Progressive criticizes Capitalism, ask yourself what is it they are truly attacking? Capitalism is absolutely pivotal to Progressive machinations, they are inseparable. To put into common terms Traditionalists, Conservatives, Reactionaries, and many NeoReactionaries fell for “the okey doke”

    Progressive writing is deliberately deceitful and of course incendiary, causing the sane to, for a better word, to react. To react to positions without, considering what you are attempting to salvage is to your detriment. Some you must react swiftly and brutally to the perversion, others you stop and think, is what I want to save beneficial to me or the Prog? Who does this aid in our world?

    “By Jove, these Commies wanna institute, Socialism, by God, don’t they know the free market works” etc. etc. Blah, blah, kill yourself. Of course this is not an argument for Socialism, that would be absurd understanding its failure, but simply because Socialism was a bloody failure, does not mean Capitalism is any better.

    Why does the Libertarian ( Libertarians are Progressives ) frame immigration in an economic context, why even the Demographer who flirts with an understanding of demographic winters? Through Capitalism there would be no speak of disparate impact in hiring practices, or Affirmative Action not only in hiring but education as well, why do Progressives push for Affirmative Action in Education? So that the benefited can enter the Market, there is no other final purpose. It is simply not to anger Whites/Europeans. The Progressive critiques Capitalism from the perspective, not that it is a cold system, they adore such, but that this systematization is not adequately inclusive in our ever expanding global, and connected community. Where “all” can freely drink Coke and engage in degenerate acts. We are no longer tussling with mad, economic Marxists, we are contending with something far more wicked and base.

    This is why I continuously implore NeoReactionaries to read Progressive critiques seriously, to comprehend what is being unsaid and secondly that NeoReactionaries have to keep going back ( to Philosophy mostly ) we have to go so far back the view of the world would be terrifyingly unknowable.

    I posted this on Twitter in image form, but since Outsideness refuses to follow me, he may have missed it. If you claim to be a Rightist in the true sense of the word, you must realize you were bamboozled.

    Warning. Heavy academic prose incoming. –

    “It is wrong to say Capitalism was co-opted by the Left. As with all collective endeavors, subversion is endogenous – The lie that Capitalism is a Rightist institution must be conclusively put to rest. When peoples are unable to defend or offer alternative markets, to whose whom strive, ply their trade or craft, simultaneously to those who possess the temerity to dissent from Progressive Social Edicts, come under threat of exclusion or economic deprivation. This conjugation of “Capital” and Leftism, can then be understood, explicitly, as an instrument of suppression and terror. As not only human interaction but access to civilization itself, to services & necessities to survival is contingent upon the monetary market, deviation from Progressive Orthodoxy becomes perilous”

    When I say, assuredly that we have been locked in a Progressivist frame totally, far longer than we can possibly know, I am not being a sensationalist.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    (I follow you on UF_blog, so I see everything.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 11th, 2015 at 11:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • jay Says:

    Since capitalism is private property and the free market and controlled ultimately by the consumer or customer. It is a reflection of the culture. Peoples choices determine the quality and type of product and service by buying them. If for example people complained and will not fund modern “capitalist” monstrosity cannot exist.

    [Reply]

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    “Capitalism” as such predates the supposed crimes (cultural) of Capitalism. Later, people just used the market as an excuse for their terrible aesthetic judgment.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 12th, 2015 at 12:12 am Reply | Quote
  • structuralfailure Says:

    psst…hey…Nick. When are you going to tell your atavist “friends” they sound like Heidegger?

    sorry if I let the cat out of the bag before the big reveal I love spoiling surprises.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 12th, 2015 at 1:26 am Reply | Quote
  • E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Says:

    I always read #hrx like ‘hurks’, the sound they say people make while vomiting.

    Is this just me?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Deleuze & Guattari call that “surplus value of code”

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 12th, 2015 at 3:08 am Reply | Quote
  • Hamm Says:

    @admin

    Why use the term ‘HRx’ when the perfectly fitting ‘ironpill’ already exists?

    Better a day Volkisch than a lifetime degenerate. How much do you deadlift brah?

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 12th, 2015 at 3:09 am Reply | Quote
  • Asher Says:

    I gotta say the first item raises all kinds of red flags. Moldbug is what he is. Overrated by what metric? By whom?

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 12th, 2015 at 4:03 am Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    — Capitalism needs to be brought under control.
    Pushing it all towards anarcho-capitalism is not really in the parameters of MM. The idea that Capitalism is something which should be allowed to run free is falling into passing rule to abstractions, it’s a form of Utopianism.

    — ‘Atomization’ is a serious problem.
    It is. This is something which comes through clear in any study of sovereignty’s development since the middle ages. Atomization, leftism and centralized power all go hand in hand. I see two ways that any reaction can develop – 1) try and reformat a system akin to the feudal system which placed limits on the reach of power/ the sovereign. (my vassal is not your vassal hierarchy) 2) MM’s move into pushing the centralizing of power/ sovereignty to its ultimate rational destination – total Leviathan.

    1) seems to be the one advocated by many including De Benoist, Hoppe (I think), and all reactionary types. 2) is a new beast modeled on Chinese culture’s resolution of the problem. This 2nd model does away with checks and balances and seeks to place the sovereign in a position in which feedbacks and incentives are directed towards good behaviour as opposed to constantly encouraging the far (the people) into leftism and atomisation as a means to undermine the near (rival powers such and companies, feudal lords etc.)

    We have to avoid falling into the disconnected retarded divisions of abstract concepts inherent in old politics.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    You’re completely ignoring Patchwork dynamics, and that leads to disaster.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    Exit? Exit without atomization should be no issue. Atomization to me (unless I am completely misunderstanding it) refers to aggressive individualization of all people into equal units. This is a major issue, which would seem to have its driver in centralised power’s need to lionize the masses and create citizens. If you look at it this way, atomization driven by political forces leads to capitalism morphing into reliance on consumerism. There is no intermediary hierachy/ powers allowable between the state and the citizen (fathers, local leaders etc) hence all to be treated as consumers without a block.

    There is no logical reason why capitalism should be allowed to run rampant. Capitalism in effect shifts in line with the stupidity unleashed by political organisation, this is another discussion area of formalism which has been neglected – the advocating of central laws which are clear and allow people to act with confidence.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    ‘Atomization’ is a cry of nostalgia for a long-dead organic social order. Tönnies said everything that can be calmly and productively said on the subject.

    Capitalism runs rampant when it does, because it can. Societies that try to domesticate it lose.

    Chris B Reply:

    This is another example of the trike striking again. You’re holding hard to anarcho-capitalism which is making any discussion dissolving into the dichotomy of Capitalism worship versus Socialism worship.

    Capitalism running rampant in the west results in businesses capturing regulatory organisations, influencing governments in very stupid ways to get monopolies via corruption and simultaneously whoring themselves out to diversity, “responsible” business and green energy crap. A strong, secure sovereign government should be able to be clear as to what rules are in place, the limits of where capitalism can act and what it can do. This is not revolutionary, it is pretty much common sense and its not “domesticating” it. If its going to be decided to drop aspects of formalism like this, then there should be more of a discussion beforehand.

    admin Reply:

    Government can do what it likes. Unlike capital, it’s territorialized. If it fails by the optimum practical capital escalation criterion, business activity will move somewhere more compliant.

    The Singapore example is crucial.

    ‘Anarcho-capitalism’ — like ‘Neocameralism’ — is a term used by most people in an extremely mindless way, as if it were primarily some kind of (Utopian) socio-political objective. It’s a cold system-theoretical description. Capital always, and by necessity, occupies a space of absolute anarchy, from which it intrudes into human social arrangements as an alien being. States are to capital as flowers to pollinating insects — they’re ‘free’ (sovereign) to be as ugly as they like. It’s not through their internal ideological will that they end up striped with ultraviolet landing signs, and equipped with nectar depots.

    vimothy Reply:

    ‘Atomization’ is a cry of nostalgia for a long-dead organic social order.

    (It’s curious that someone with your views founded a nominally reactionary political movement.)

    When people say that capitalism is inherently progressive, this is what they mean: that tradition and organic social order are dissolved in its acid; that capitalism is constant revolution and transformative change. Hence the tight historical coupling between it and managerialist liberalism. Both are complementary methods by which society can be instrumentalised and rationally reordered to satisfy man’s preferences, with capitalism providing the engine and managerialist liberalism the direction.

    Alex Reply:

    States are to capital as flowers to pollinating insects — they’re ‘free’ (sovereign) to be as ugly as they like. It’s not through their internal ideological will that they end up striped with ultraviolet landing signs, and equipped with nectar depots.

    Those signals only need be conspicuous to attract the insects, which don’t care if they are beautiful or ugly to human eyes or noses. Insects will pollinate a rose or a corpse flower. Equally humans can cultivate varieties of beautiful rose without prejudice to the insects’ work. “Whatever you want, capitalism is the most reliable way to get it” (“Critique of Transcendental Miserabilism”).

    Posted on April 12th, 2015 at 5:12 am Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    All we need now is Pious Reaction (PRx).

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I’ve already been accused of being #PRx, and I’ve no idea what it meant — but don’t think it can have been that.

    [Reply]

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    #PRx is already Pie Reaction.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 12th, 2015 at 8:38 am Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    @ “States are to capital as flowers to pollinating insects — they’re ‘free’ (sovereign) to be as ugly as they like.” This analogy is good, but the society needs to arranged in such a way as to make capital attracted to it and be stable/ functioning. There’s a lot of work that needs to be done to get to this stage. Encouraging human capital (e.g. not Africans), investing in infrastructure, establishing social organisation which is amicable to safety and security to allow capitalism to function. The type of capitalism activity you encourage is also a factor to quote Lee Kuan Yew ” If you get immigration from the fruit-pickers, you may not get very far!”

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    There’s nothing there I disagree with at all. (Anarcho-Capitalism is locked in at the level of the Patchwork, not at the level of the individual state — which would clearly be senseless.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 12th, 2015 at 8:55 am Reply | Quote
  • Hurlock Says:

    @Chris B

    Okay, this “capitalism running rampant” line is getting really out of hand.

    Can any of you show me just ONE place on the planet where “capitalism runs rampant”?

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    Everywhere. My definition of capitalism running amok is capitalist enterprises using finance to exert undue pressure in areas of society in which they have no reason to be in. Just take the USA for example, the complete capturing of the regulatory bodies (for their own survival) as well as the mass investment in political contributions = running amok. In a sane governmental system, they would have no place there.

    But of course, given no one is running this sh*tshow, this type of silliness is not only going to continue, it will get worse. This will be especially the case in serious economic downturns where (as we can see) sections of the economy declare their vital nature, and democratic political organisation sloshes around and bail them out to avoid social unrest. USA capitalism at its finest. Capitalism and capitalists needs smacking back into place and sane and correctly incentivized governmental sovereignty needs establishing.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    Finance is basically a government sector. What capitalist pressure can be exerted there? The pressure is the other way around. From the regulators to the capitalists, not from the capitalists onto the regulators.

    It seems like someone hasn’t read Moldbug on economics.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    Last time I checked the banking and finance sector were running rings around the regulators and pushing them to socialize losses.

    jay Reply:

    Methinks this is downstream from the mainstream progressive culture blaming corporatism and cronyism on: “capitalism”

    Fascism and Communism=State Capitalism.(In their words)

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    I concur with jay, this is downstream from the insanity of the government system. This is the second gilded age, the so called laissez faire politics of the first gilded age which of course were in fact anything but were similar though saner but never the less rooted in government collusion with business. Don’t blame economics for bad government. For what it’s worth personally I see the sovereign having a role in ensuring the competitiveness of the market, like managing a wildlife preserve. A light touch. Not sure where that puts me.

    My problem is that historically Gnon makes a lousy sovereign over sovereigns, what with the whole blind idiot god thing. Superintelligence just adds another layer, it doesn’t replace the blind idiot god, just like how superintelligence doesn’t provide an escape from the red queen’s race, Gnon’s blind idiocy will still remain. The ride never ends.

    [Reply]

    jay Reply:

    According to Lao Tzu,

    “The best leaders are those the people hardly know exist.
    The next best is a leader who is loved and praised.
    Next comes the one who is feared.
    The worst one is the leader that is despised.”

    [Reply]

    jay Reply:

    If you don’t trust the people,
    they will become untrustworthy.

    The best leaders value their words, and use them sparingly.
    When he has accomplished his task,
    the people say, “Amazing:
    we did it, all by ourselves!

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 12th, 2015 at 9:39 am Reply | Quote
  • an inanimate aluminum tube Says:

    It’s weird that so many followers of Gnon worship an extinct social form.

    Either what we have today is capitalism or capitalism has been tried and discarded in favor of something else. Call it crony capitalism.

    Admin likes to talk about downward social mobility and other people like to talk about the constant competitive pressure placed on capitalists. The theory is that these constant pressures will force people to improve or be replaced by those that do improve.

    But nobody likes constant pressure, to constantly be under threat and going full out to avoid defeat. And everyone fears downward social mobility… even capitalists. They are human after all.

    You’d be willing to do a deal with the devil to avoid downward social mobility, but why do a deal with the devil when you can do a deal with the state? Get rich through capitalism, gain money and power, then use that to influence government and solidify your position, pulling the ladder up after yourself and alleviating those unpleasant competitive pressures. Achieving the fundamentally human desire for a safer position. And if you don’t do it someone else will.

    Maybe uncontrolled capitalism is a problem that solves itself.

    Admin’s version of this is better than most because it recognizes the weakness of the human factor involved and seeks to eliminate it, physically.

    But it seems that admin still assumes a patchwork when none is in evidence and where many trends in fact point to the opposite, greater centralization, larger political units. And the assumption that somebody will come along and out-compete the crony capitalists breaks down in this situation.

    Maybe all the states that are large enough to matter will just go crony capitalist and competition will be reduced to piglets jostling for a nipple.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 12th, 2015 at 10:09 am Reply | Quote
  • Aeroguy Says:

    There is a question of corporate centralization. Restaurants seem immune, capital intensive industries on the other hand not so much. Cartels, cornering the market and other anti-competitive methods do exist. MMOs provide interesting experiments where markets are left to their own devices, frequent is the story of GMs having to intervene when players start monopolizing the market and rendering the game essentially unplayable.

    I remember one of my friends who played WOW had a app on his phone that enabled him to manage the exchange of a particular resource he a few of his buddies on the server had a cartel on (or rather they became buddies since price wars are bad for business). They took turns controlling the market, controlling the market was simply buying out lower priced goods and reselling them at the limit the market could handle, since usury doesn’t exist in WOW it doesn’t get broken enough to justify GM intervention there. Barrier to entry was having a time consuming to level skill and sufficient resources to flood the market should any perspective market entryists show up, the whole cartel would work together to keep out any more determined entryists. Technically this was a functional market system that kept the price of the material relatively stable and still flowing. There was a hierarchy based on established relationships and acquired skills.

    Seriously though, MMOs make great economic case studies.

    [Reply]

    Orthodox Laissez-fairist Reply:

    No, they don’t. First of all, they have infinite money supply. Secondly, in MMO’s there’s no productivity growth via standard mechanism of savings and investment (capital accumulation) and technological change. As a consequence of lack of technological change, apart from lack of productivity growth that comes with it, there’s also no change in demands (compare demand for swords and horseshoes today versus demand for swords and horseshoes in Medieval times). Thirdly, monopolies don’t quite work out in real life (except state-caused monopolies – either with outright monopoly grants from state or monopolies caused through fees and regulations).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q1fSNzYNhg

    http://mises.org/library/competition-work-xerox-25

    http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/the-misplaced-fear-of-monopoly/

    Hurlock can probably do this lot better than me…

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    MMOs do make good economic models if you take into account their shortcomings. I mean, I met a guy who didn’t think auction house prices were set by supply and demand. Since their shortcomings are mainly in low velocity and simplicity, they’re hardly shortcomings at all pedagogically speaking.

    Cartels as you describe, Aeroguy, aren’t really cartels. It’s due to the small size and thus uncompetitive nature of the markets. (Also causes slow evolution through game theory states.) They had no real competition because most basically competent people do not play MMOs. They were buying up morons and slackers who didn’t know or care to find out the market price. Occasionally a rational person who wanted a quick sale rather than a slow one.

    Breaking such a cartel is the easiest thing in the world for a competent and determined competitor; cartels necessarily fund cartel-breakers. Further as supply/demand curves are concave, the broken cartel will usually make something more than twice as much total profit.

    I can dredge up the exact Goblin post on WOW cartels if it won’t be a waste of my time. There’s also a few on 0.01 cartels in EVE.

    @Orthodox Laissez-fairist
    Nice name there, and always happy to see a Hurlock fan.
    That said there is indeed productivity growth. New methods or locations of farming. Admittedly much of this comes down to the botters programming their bots better. Which is good for the average helpless consumer, though less so for anyone attempting to produce without reference to RMT.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 12th, 2015 at 10:35 am Reply | Quote
  • A.B Prosper Says:

    @CuiPertinebit

    This is typically known as Distributism

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 12th, 2015 at 8:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • Michael Says:

    Ive been thinking something could be done, not political . Ive been thinking most americans accept as a given we are going to collapse soon. they cant bring themselves to invest the time ot money in prepping but probably think they will regret it. now DENRX seems to think after the collapse we revert to reaction I think we revert to thunderdome not Downton Abbey. DENRX rejects revolution democracy politics while Im sympathetic to the idea voting republican is now stupid, democracy has buggs and order beats chaos I also think imply watching the decline from the balcony while arguing about monarchy and killer computers is total faggotry.
    now this idea is not fleshed out and ive asked for help its hard to explain simply and its easily mistaken for things like militias .
    Im thinking rural americans and probably a good many urban and suburban ones too being in a pre revolutionary state could be easily organized. what im thinking is tribes confederations patches call them what ever the purpose is to agree to work together in the event of collapse to maintain order. Im thinking how this is done should be left up to these groups to a large extent sure they will want to arm themselves and figure out communications and supplies etc but to avoid a miltia stigma that should be played down .communication between patches, trade, aliances should be played up. the women should have their own intersts specialties, see this subtly introduces reaction. now AA works very well from these 12 traditions they have they are kind of an immunity to entry-ism by several methods not easily described to a newcomer but ill try the first is a clear understanding that AA groups have a primary purpose that must never be endangered by outside interests the other is while any alcoholic is welcome to join any group only alcoholics can join and exit is a right , we say all it takes to start an AA group is a resentment and a coffee pot in practice control freaks have a tough time raking over AA groups even though they are wide open theres a high probability people will just leave if it gets bad also there are no leaders no positions of power to seize you can come and participate in the primary purpose .
    anyway Im thinking something along these lines but designed not only to maintain order and institute reaction after a collapse but to introduce these values surreptitiously. The average american may not be ready for all of this DENRX but as much as can be while inoculating against leftism. MM is always talking about pathogens imagine you wanted to infect a land with reaction what sort of virus would you design knowing it has antibodies for many of the things you eventually want to introduce but understanding the sequence of infections is the key . well I hope i gave an idea of what im thinking.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 13th, 2015 at 2:17 am Reply | Quote
  • Hegemonizing Swarm Says:

    No, thanks, I like my “techno-commercial Vulcanism, race-treachery, and intellectual circumlocution” just fine. I don’t think past answers can do more than provide guidance in going forward. You can’t just put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    (Outside in is not expected to transition to an #HRx blog — which from the #HRx perspective, is a major selling point in itself. Still tweaking the marketing operation, but it appears to have reached criticality.)

    From 8chan (of course): “I totally agree OP, that’s why I’ve become a part of the much more Jew aware splinter group #HRx (heroic reaction) gay acronym, I know, but it synthesising what’s good about the movement while incorporating and integrating new fields of inquiry. … a lot of people in nrx were getting tired of the direction and bullshit it has been going in, not to mention that Moldbug basically completely discounts Kevin McDonald’s work on evolutionary group strategy and goes easy on the Jews because of his own semitic origins.”
    — Oh no! Now we’re losing the group selectionists!

    [Reply]

    Hegemonizing Swarm Reply:

    > — Oh no! Now we’re losing the group selectionists!

    Good riddance. Let the “jew aware” populism go somewhere else.

    [Reply]

    Mark Citadel Reply:

    I’m kind of ambivalent toward Jews, but when people who wholly identify as proud Jews and then think they can critique Occidental Reaction, that pisses me off. That isn’t Moldbug, but I have seen it on a few comment sections around the Reactosphere. I don’t know what attracts these people. If you’re an Israeli, have an Israeli Reaction, don’t piss on ours. All that does is bolster the arguments of movements like #HRX.

    Izak Reply:

    They don’t care about group selection. I promise. Few of them even know what that is. They aren’t seriously reading CoC as an evolutionary theory, it’s more of just a rap sheet on how the Jews have been screwy with humanities and social sciences. I’ve read it (and MacDonald’s second book), and it’s much better when you approach it that way.

    That said, it’s kind of hilarious that your plan worked on some level. Unless that was more guerilla tactics.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 13th, 2015 at 4:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    Can’t say I care much one way or the other. #HRx, as you describe, has obviously stupid parts but is still getting at something tremendously important and mostly lost. Moldbug, ditto.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 13th, 2015 at 7:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • pseudo-chrysostom Says:

    ‘over-thinking’ is unhelpful not because the answers are easy, but because they are hard. it is the very attempt to address more transcendent issues by those unfit to address them that leads to intellectual chimeras (ah, the academics! they are numerous, but not good for much!).

    *that* is the inwardness of passing over in silence to focus on the more simple and parochial (in otherwords, depoliticizing the people). thereby to achieve righter reason in what they do, is what would then advance a more righteous greater teleology, though the connections are not made explicit. indeed, so often *because* they do not attempt to make them explicit.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 14th, 2015 at 1:52 am Reply | Quote
  • pseudo-chrysostom Says:

    this also happens to invoke one of my favorite forms of horror, delicious in its irony.

    i do not think it was coincidental that it was an anglo-saxon who first deliberately and explicitly invoked cosmic horror. the thought that there are things absolutely outside the scope of ones knowledge is deeply disturbing too the, how can we say, ‘symbolically enamored.’ for in truth he is already disturbed; everyday reality is already akin to a black box to him, strange and inscrutable in its motions. to think that there is no ultimate escape from the hell he finds himself in, horrifying.

    the thought of an aimless, blind-idiot universe, is in fact comforting in a manner of fashion. he can console himself that the state of this fallen world, or his attempts and failures to grapple with the same, really arnt his fault, since after all theres nothing doing anyways. in otherwords, it isolates and excuses the powers of his thought, which he values very much. such a thought helps obscure a deeper, more sinister thought; that not only is it his fault, his attempt to help, his attempt to *think*, is what made it worse, will make it worse.

    the thought that no matter how hard or long you reason, the only outcome can be so much more venality. and indeed, the harder he thinks, the worse it gets, the product so much more insidious and seductive. obvious issues are addressed, so also is it obvious to the people, having similar perspectives. but that which is not obvious to him, is not obvious to them either, yet so often is it these that have the most import. the most disastrous things, ideas especially, always have righteous aspects, that they may be so much more effective in their mayhem.

    when thought itself becomes your own worst enemy, that is the kind of horror that is sublime, paralyzing, beautiful in its reflexiveness.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 14th, 2015 at 3:31 am Reply | Quote
  • Mark Citadel Says:

    As someone who does not identify as NeoReactionary, I think this whole #HRX thing could be fatal to NeoReaction. Its a bad fragmentation, and we regular Reactionaries already think the fragmentation present between Reaction and NeoReaction is too much. Now there’s ANOTHER hashtag? It sounds like a poorly attempted fad to be honest or an entryist crapsicle.

    My objective advice to NeoReaction is kill #hrx dead. even if they do mean well they are having a negative effect.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Any reasons for this? Are numbers supposed to matter in themselves? Or is there something about the types already pouring in their countless multitudes to #HRx that #NRx could possibly benefit from? (I’d argue that we’ve seen, with utter clarity, exactly the opposite. Their senseless babble has driven almost everybody of intellectual quality out of the conversation. Who wants to be associated with a mob of angry, low cognitive-capability thugs?)

    The more high-security fences, the better.

    [Reply]

    Mark Citadel Reply:

    I don’t know what #HRX really is, but from what I’ve seen on Twitter, NeoReaction is being targeted by a very well-co ordinated entryist plot that has downgraded intellectual conversation and engaged in a policy of personal destruction. Bear in mind, I was an early critic of the entryist paranoia, but the NeoReactionaries who pointed it out were right.

    Sorting the wheat from the chaff is difficult in some cases, but a trawl through the comment section at Jim’s blog and you can see people who literally only agree with 1 aspect of Reactionary thinking and consider the rest insane.

    I don’t know how important Twitter actually is (probably not very), but it seems like people at least loosely affiliated with the #HRX movement have driven several NeoReactionaries off of it. Whether these people are just disgruntled or actual disguised enemy combatants is anyone’s guess, but they are effective. Bryce Laliberte’s disappearance concerns me for one.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 14th, 2015 at 10:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • pseudo-chrysostom Says:

    speaking of bryce, is there any archive or backup pf his blog? it would be a shame if all of that was blasted into the ether.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 15th, 2015 at 1:24 am Reply | Quote
  • 9 Fringe Wizards Says:

    I said that my egregore would eat your movement, you Cybernetic scoundrel.

    Having researched the scarcity-conjuring sorceries at the root of Austrianism, our order thereby discovered the inherent contradictions in tech-comm NRx. An obscure link to an exposition of the necessarily obscure mechanics of this deep-state illusionism hides on the lowest levels of the linked demagogic assembly. Suffice it to say, for the sake of polite and honourable dialogue, that there are particularly striking parallels between the defining informational structure of of your analysis, as it is made immanent in the societal network, and the structure of libidinal energy transfer characterising a recently popularised carnal proclivity rhyming with ‘Duck’.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 18th, 2015 at 10:27 am Reply | Quote
  • Heroism « Calculated Bravery Says:

    […] word “hero,” and “heroism,” as a technical term, for use in thinking about Heroic Reaction.  Thus, it’s no good saying, “The real heroes […]

    Posted on May 18th, 2016 at 6:43 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment